DND reaffirms commitment to French-language training at Saint-Jean

Meraiah Krebs new National Director for our Canada School of Public Service

and Public Service Commission members

Campaign planned around threats to our

Canadian Grain Commission members

Meeting held with Agriculture Minister's political advisors

Ducharme urges Parliamentarians to take action

on maternity-paternity benefits issue

Technical Services Group members urged to continue

with conciliation dispute settlement route in mail-in vote

PI Review - one step forward; half-a-step back

Service Officer Announcements - 'Welcome back Sylvia, but stick around Jerry!'

DND reaffirms commitment to French-language training at Saint-Jean

(Posted November 22, 2006)

The Department of National Defence has reaffirmed its commitment to the sustainability of French-language training at the Canadian Forces Learning and Development Centre in Saint-Jean, Quebec.

Our members at Saint-Jean Language School have been on tenterhooks since last September, when they learned that the school would lose one of its three pavilions in the main building of the Saint-Jean military base by the beginning of November.

All School operations were to be shifted into the two remaining pavilions.  This was made necessary by the intensive recruiting the Canadian Forces have undertaken in recent months.  A flood of new recruits would displace the Language School students and language classes would be cancelled unless DND could find new space by renting the Champlain Building on the Campus of Fort Saint-Jean (formerly Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean).

DND has now informed us that the construction plan for the new buildings is still active and that the Department is making every effort to ensure the sustainability of the French-language training in Saint-Jean.

The employer has also committed to maintaining regular communication with our union representatives.

Meraiah Krebs new National Director for our Canada School of Public Service and Public Service Commission members

(Posted November 18, 2006)

The Agriculture Union’s Canada School of Public Service and Public Service Commission members have a new National Director – Meraiah Krebs.

Meraiah replaces Céline Préfontaine, who has stepped aside to accept a position as Joint Learning Coordinator in the National Capital Region.

Meraiah was elected Céline’s Alternate at our 2005 Convention.  A smooth transition has been taking place since early October to ensure the same high standards of membership service are maintained.

So, welcome Meraiah. And all the best to Céline in her challenging new position.

Campaign planned around threats to our Canadian Grain Commission members

(Posted November 17, 2006)

The Agriculture Union is planning a vigorous response to a number of policy initiatives by the Harper government that threaten to undermine the role, responsibility and job security of our Canadian Grain Commission members.

The Winnipeg-based CGC is a federal government agency operating under the authority of the Canada Grain Act.  Its 700 employees provide a number of services as grain makes its way from the producer’s field to markets.  Most importantly, it ensures the quality of grain is maintained as it moves through the handling system.

Our union’s campaign is in direct response to two critical issues currently facing our CGC members:

          • repercussions on the Commission from the possible changes to the Canadian Wheat Board – the

               farmer-controlled organization that markets wheat and barley grown by western Canadian

               producers; and

          • the impact of the so-called ‘COMPAS Report’, whose recommendations may lead to a downsizing or

               privatization of the Commission itself.

Certainly, the ‘COMPAS Report’ is anything but a fair and balanced document. It fails to paint an accurate portrait of the services provided by the CGC.  It makes no mention of the under-staffing and under-funding that frustrate the Commission’s efforts to fully implement its mandate.  And, in its pandering to the Conservatives’ anti-public-sector prejudices, it neglects to mention any of the strong arguments against privatization.

As for the Wheat Board, the Harper government, responding to a vocal ‘free market’ minority of farmers centered in their Alberta power base, has refused a democratic vote on privatization among all affected wheat and barley growers.

Privatization or diminishment of the Board’s role and activities would have a significant impact on the CGC workforce, up to and including significant job loss.  Without the stabilizing influence of the current Wheat Board structure, the work of remaining CGC staff could become very irregular, varying drastically from year to year.

The Agriculture Union put a number of questions to the Agriculture Minister’s political advisors during an October 16 meeting:
           • How will the services of both the CGC and the CFIA be affected by the changes in the marketing

                 grain?
           • In light of the ‘COMPAS Report’ are valid public- versus private-sector comparisons being made?
           • Would corporations be expected to operate on a 50-50 cost recovery basis, as is currently expected

                of the CGC in respect of inward inspection?

Given the lack of satisfactory answers to these concerns, the Agriculture Union is moving to organize our own campaign.

To date, the National Office is planning to:

          • meet with the agriculture and CWB critics of the three opposition parties;

          • prepare a brief for presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and

               Agri-Food; and

          • approach the PSAC and the Canadian Labour Congress for active support of our efforts.

Meanwhile, the NDP premiers of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, where 75 per cent of western wheat is grown, have promised to hold their own farmers’ referendum on the Wheat Board’s future if the Conservatives continue to promote ideology over democracy.

A strong majority of farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan – at least two-thirds – oppose privatization of the Board, a government entity that has helped shelter the incomes of Canadian farmers from the unfettered corporate free trade championed by American-controlled multinational grain marketers, the Harper government and its Liberal predecessor.

In fact, one Conservative Member of Parliament from Manitoba, who obviously knows his electoral neck is on the line, had dared to challenge Harper by calling for a free and fair farmers’ vote.

Hopefully, common sense will ultimately prevail. But, in the meantime, we are adopting a proactive stance of our own.

Meeting held with Agriculture Minister’s political advisors

(Posted November 17, 2006)

We met in mid-October with political advisors to Agriculture Minister Chuck Strahl to present an overview of a number of issues impacting our membership.

The October 16 meeting was a follow-up to a letter sent by National President Yves Ducharme to the Minister suggesting the need for an exchange of views.

We were able to put forward a wide range of concerns expressed by members from numerous employer groups.

Overall, we pressed home the view that different organizations coming under the Minister of Agriculture’s authority should be managed within a single organizational structure.  It is clear that the segregation of managerial responsibilities has undermined the benefits of coordination and created separate fiefdoms.

All the different organizations under the Minister’s purview have their own policies on how to manage their employees.  Under the best of circumstances, mobility and career development opportunities have been reduced.  Costly and wasteful duplication of Human Resources regimes, with their chronic and major staffing shortfalls, has dramatically slowed grievance handling, staffing decisions and other labour relations functions.

We focused on the seemingly-never-ending example of the PI Review as a practical – if immensely frustrating – example of this unacceptable and untenable situation.

The impact on our Canadian Grain Commission members of the possible changes to the Canadian Wheat Board, along with the dubious recommendations of the so-called ‘COMPAS Report’, was a central topic of discussion.  (For more information, see the major Web site article on our campaign to defend our CGC members.)

We also raised the issue of the transfer of import inspection responsibilities from the CFIA to the Canada Border Services Agency.  CBSA is tasked with security issues; the Agency has neither the time nor the inclination to prevent biological pests.  This reorganization has left our agriculture and forestry sectors in danger while leaving CFIA staff demoralized as to their ability to work effectively.

On a separate front, Bob Kingston, our First National Executive Vice-President, has discussed the CBSA issue with Ron Moran, President of CEUDA, who also expressed his concern with the situation.

Ducharme urges Parliamentarians to take action on maternity-paternity benefits issue

(Posted November 15, 2006)

National President Yves Ducharme is urging the Members of Parliament and Senators to act to remove barriers to full transferability of maternity/paternity benefits between Treasury Board employers and Agencies.

Delegates to the Agriculture Union’s 2005 Convention passed an emergency resolution calling on the government to address and resolve the contentious issue.

In his November 7 letter, Ducharme outlined a specific case of discrimination faced by one Agriculture Union member. While that individual’s case was ultimately settled, the overall issue remains for all federal public service employees.

A sample copy of Ducharme’s letter to Parliamentarians calling for remedial action, follows:

                                                                                                                           November 7, 2006

Mr. Patrick Martin, M.P.
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, ON
K1A 0A6

Dear Mr. Martin:

Re: Maternity/Paternity Benefits

          Our Union believes you need to be aware of a particular issue of offensive discrimination occurring in the present-day federal government workforce. The issue relates to the lack of transferability of maternity/paternity benefits between Treasury Board employers and government Agencies.
           The issue is one of fundamental gender equity. Treasury Board, as overseer of the federal public service, is in flagrant breach of human rights legislation. This infringement of basic rights should concern you, as a parliamentarian, and your Parliamentary colleagues as representatives of the Canadian people and upholders of the laws of the land.

          The specific situation pertains to a member of the Agriculture Union-Public Service Alliance of Canada, currently an employee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. When previous governments restructured the federal public service during the 1990s, workers transferred into newly-created ‘separate operating agencies’ (such as the CFIA) were promised their existing benefits would not be altered.

          The woman in question was formerly an employee of a Department under Treasury Board. Upon her return from maternity leave, she competed for and was successful in obtaining a new position within the CFIA. There was no interruption in service between these employers.

          Months later, the Department contacted her and demanded repayment of her maternity leave benefits, on the basis that she was now working for an Agency and was no longer a Treasury Board employee. This, in spite of the fact, that the funds come out of the exact same source whether you are an employee from Treasury Board, or from an Agency.

          The CFIA showed a willingness to work out a solution but negotiations failed because the Department placed the blame on the current contentious Treasury Board policy. The government employee in question was placed in a position of having to repay her maternity benefits. There are continuing attempts to resolve this situation, through a mediated settlement, however, the broader issue would remain unresolved for all other employees.

          This Treasury Board policy is an affront to employment equity. The government policy offends parents, and in most cases, women. The Treasury Board’s actions also contravene the recently enacted Public Service Labour Relations Act, which states that all employees of the federal government should be treated equally.

          In addition to the PSLRA, the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act also prohibit discrimination based on gender and family status and provide for the elimination of barriers to employment, job opportunity and promotion.

          I am asking, on behalf of the many federal public service families, both in your constituency and across the country, that you take action to bring this discriminatory policy into compliance with the law and the fundamental values of Canadians.

          I thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this pressing matter. Please contact me should you require any further information.

                                                                                              Yours sincerely,

                                                                                              Yves Ducharme
                                                                                              National President
                                                                                              Agriculture Union

Technical Services Group members urged to continue with conciliation dispute settlement route in mail-in vote

(Posted November 11, 2006)

The Agriculture Union is strongly urging our members belonging to the Technical Services (TC) Group to continue with the conciliation dispute settlement route as the best means to secure gains in the upcoming round of negotiations.

A mail-in vote has been launched by our bargaining agent, the Public Service Alliance, to enable Technical Services Group members to choose between two dispute settlement options:
        • the current conciliation path, with the right to strike; or
        • binding arbitration.

The vote was triggered pursuant to Regulation 15 of the PSAC Constitution and Regulations, when a required 10 per cent of TC Group members requested a ballot.

A PSAC voting kit – containing background information, voting instructions and a ballot, ballot envelope and return envelope – should be received by all Technical Services Group members at their homes in the near future. Ballots must be returned to the PSAC by mail by December 11, 2006.

The Agriculture Union believes that the threat of a possible strike is our union’s most potent weapon at the bargaining table. Opting for arbitration places your destiny in other peoples’ hands, as arbitrators make direct comparisons to other arbitrated decisions.

As well, abandoning the power of the strike option sends an entirely inappropriate and self-defeating message to the employer – that the members of the Technical Services Group have neither backbone nor fight.

The following classification groups comprise the Technical Service Group:
        • Drafting and Illustration (DD);
        • Engineering and Scientific Support (EG);
        • General Technical (GT);
        • Photography (PY);
        • Primary Products Inspection (PI); and
        • Technical Inspection (TI).

PI Review – one step forward; half-a-step back

(Posted November 8, 2006)

It may be progress, but it can only be measured with a micrometer!

Our members at the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will recall our last update, when we noted that the review of grievances had virtually stopped due to a severe shortage of the employer’s human resources staff.

To the extent there is good news, we can report that CFIA is now beginning to staff these vacant HR positions.  However, it will still take some time for these new staff, once hired, to come up to speed on the PI Review issues.

As a result, National President Yves Ducharme has sent the following letter to CFIA President François Guimont, asking him to intervene to resolve this long outstanding issue:

November 6, 2006

François Guimont
President,
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
59 Camelot Dr.
Nepean ON K1A 0Y9

Dear Sir:

Re: PI Review

The purpose of my letter is to express my dismay at the delays caused by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in resolving a classification review which initially began in 1997 and, in 2006, is still not resolved. It is also to ask that you, as President of the CFIA, become personally involved in resolving this issue.

As you are no doubt aware, this exercise involved our members who were Primary Products Inspectors (PI) and who, in June 2000, were converted to the Engineering & Scientific Support group (EG). Unfortunately, the results of this review caused the filing of over 5, 000 grievances, and due mainly to a number of arbitrary decisions taken by the CFIA.

Both sides agreed to a process of mediation and an agreement was reached on the majority of work descriptions, with the exception of one generic and a few “unique” situations that are still not finalized.

At the beginning of that mediation process we agreed that all work descriptions would be finalized before proceeding to the next phase, which was to have these work descriptions classified. In January 2006, we were informed that the CFIA had decided to send the agreed upon job descriptions to classification, even though there was still some outstanding issues in dispute.

On April 3rd, 2006, a meeting was held with CFIA representatives and, at that meeting, we learned that the classification process was almost complete. It was their intent to advise CFIA Regional Directors on April 26, 2006 of the results and what the procedure would be to inform affected staff. At the April 3rd meeting, we raised other issues which required discussion, including how to deal with changes to work descriptions which have occurred since 2000. I am sure you are aware of the extent that the work of inspectors has changed over the past few years, none the least of which is the discovery of mad cow disease, the Avian Influenza, etc.

Since our meeting in April, the Agriculture Union has heard absolutely nothing from your Agency. We were told the delays were due to the departure of several employees, both within staff relations and classification, including the senior agency representatives, with whom we met in April.

Over the past few months and on a number of occasions, we have requested a meeting with Agency representatives, to no avail. Now we are being told that these meetings cannot be scheduled, not because employees have left, but because new employees have just arrived.

These delays can no longer be justified! As previously stated, we would urge you to personally intervene in order that the parties can reach an agreement and resolve this long outstanding issue.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours truly,

Yves Ducharme
National President

c.c. National Council

Service Officer Announcements – ‘Welcome back Sylvia, but stick around Jerry!’

(Posted November 6, 2006)

It’s the best of both worlds in the Agriculture Union National Office.

Late October saw us welcome the return of Sylvia Prowse from her six-month leave-of-absence. As before, she will have servicing responsibility for all our Locals in the Prairies and British Columbia.

During Sylvia’s leave, Jerry Kovacs admirably backfilled the position on a term basis. However, we’re not prepared to let him go just yet.

Jerry’s term has been extended for a further six months, during which time he will focus on the AAFC- EG Review.

© 2005-2009 AGRICULTURE UNION - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED